2022 United States Supreme Court case
Egbert v. Boule |
---|
|
Argued March 2, 2022 Decided June 8, 2022 |
---|
Full case name | Erik Egbert v. Robert Boule |
---|
Docket no. | 21-147 |
---|
Citations | 596 U.S. 482 (more) |
---|
Argument | Oral argument |
---|
Holding |
---|
The holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents does not extend to causes of action for either Boule's claims of First Amendment retaliation or Fourth Amendment excessive-force. |
Court membership |
---|
- Chief Justice
- John Roberts
- Associate Justices
- Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett |
Case opinions |
---|
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
---|
Concurrence | Gorsuch (in judgment) |
---|
Concur/dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan |
---|
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court declined to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
Background
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents was a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed for private citizens to seek monetary damages from federal agents when their rights were violated. However, the Bivens decision was based on a limited application of the Fourth Amendment to protect from illegal search and seizure, and since Bivens was decided, the Supreme Court has generally denied extending that decision to cover other causes of actions on the basis that only Congress could otherwise establish a pathway for such remedies.[1]
Robert Boule is the owner of "Smuggler's Inn", a bed-and-breakfast in Blaine, Washington, near the Canada–United States border. Part of Boule's property extended into Canada, which allowed for illegal crossing of the border as well as a route for contraband. That made the United States Border Patrol keep close watch on the hotel, and Boule often worked with Border Patrol agents to notify them when persons of interest were staying at his inn to allow them to be detained by the agents.
In 2014, the Border Patrol became aware of a Turkish person that had arranged travel to the inn. When the guest arrived at the inn, the agent Erik Egbert approached the inn and looked to speak with the individual. Boule stopped Egbert and asked him to leave. Boule alleged that Egbert had used a show of force and unlawfully harassed him during the visit to the inn and later retaliated against him by reporting him to the Internal Revenue Service. The district court ruled for Egbert and found that the Supreme Court had held that under the prior Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, causes of action that would allow citizens to sue federal agents for violation of their rights could not be extended to First Amendment retaliation claims or Fourth Amendment claims touching on immigration issues. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Twelve judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, in opinions authored by Judges John B. Owens, Daniel Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay.
Boule subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[2]
Supreme Court
Certiorari was granted in the case on November 5, 2021, limited to the first two questions presented.[clarification needed] The Court declined to consider the question of whether Bivens should be completely overruled.
The Court issued its decision on June 8, 2022. In a 9–0 decision, the court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the First Amendment retaliation claim. It split 6–3 on the Fourth Amendment claim. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment and called for Bivens to be overruled in its entirety. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part (as to the First Amendment claim) and dissenting in part (as to the Fourth Amendment claim). Thomas wrote that under Bivens, only Congress could authorize a damage remedy for either asserted First or Fourth Amendment violations for cases against federal agents, and cautioned from allowing the court to expand beyond the limited cases that Bivens allowed for.[3] In the partial dissent, Sotomayor agreed that the alleged First Amendment violations could not go forward under Bivens, but argued that the Fourth Amendment claim should have been considered.[1]
Subsequent developments
The decision reinforces the immunity of federal officers from lawsuits related to claims of violations of constitutional rights, unless Congress creates a right of action.[4][5][6]
References
- ^ a b Sneed, Tierney; De Vogue, Ariana (June 8, 2022). "Supreme Court limits excessive force claims against Border Patrol agents". CNN. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
- ^ Howe, Amy (November 5, 2021). "Justices add four new cases to their docket, including Bivens case, but won't reconsider Bivens itself". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 2, 2021.
- ^ Fritze, John (June 8, 2022). "Supreme Court rules against man who sued Customs agent for excessive force". USA Today. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
- ^ Millhiser, Ian (June 8, 2022). "The Supreme Court gives lawsuit immunity to Border Patrol agents who violate the Constitution". Vox. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
- ^ Ford, Matt (June 8, 2022). "The Supreme Court Keeps Chipping Away at Your Constitutional Rights". The New Republic. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 8, 2022). "Supreme Court Sides With Border Agent Accused of Using Excessive Force". The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2022.
External links
- Text of Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)
|
---|
Public displays and ceremonies | |
---|
Statutory religious exemptions | |
---|
Public funding | |
---|
Religion in public schools | |
---|
Private religious speech | |
---|
Internal church affairs | |
---|
Taxpayer standing | |
---|
Blue laws | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Unprotected speech | Incitement and sedition | |
---|
Libel and false speech | |
---|
Fighting words and the heckler's veto | |
---|
True threats | |
---|
Obscenity | - Rosen v. United States (1896)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
- Roth v. United States (1957)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
- Smith v. California (1959)
- Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
- MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
- Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
- Redrup v. New York (1967)
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
- Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
- Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
- Miller v. California (1973)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
- Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
- Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
- American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
- People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
- Reno v. ACLU (1997)
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
- United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
- Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
- United States v. Williams (2008)
- American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Stevens (2010)
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
|
---|
Speech integral to criminal conduct | |
---|
|
---|
Strict scrutiny | |
---|
Vagueness | |
---|
Symbolic speech versus conduct | |
---|
Content-based restrictions | |
---|
Content-neutral restrictions | |
---|
Compelled speech | |
---|
Compelled subsidy of others' speech | |
---|
Government grants and subsidies | |
---|
Government as speaker | |
---|
Loyalty oaths | |
---|
School speech | |
---|
Public employees | |
---|
Hatch Act and similar laws | |
---|
Licensing and restriction of speech | |
---|
Commercial speech | - Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
- Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
- Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
- Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
- Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
- Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
- In re Primus (1978)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
- Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
- In re R.M.J. (1982)
- Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
- Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
- Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
- State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
- Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
- United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
- Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
- Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
- Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
- 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
- Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
- Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
- Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
- United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
- Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
- Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
- Vidal v. Elster (2024)
|
---|
Campaign finance and political speech | |
---|
Anonymous speech | |
---|
State action | |
---|
Official retaliation | |
---|
Boycotts | |
---|
Prisons | |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Organizations | |
---|
Future Conduct | |
---|
Solicitation | |
---|
Membership restriction | |
---|
Primaries and elections | |
---|
|
|
|